gemini-cli-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Gemini Mcp Remove

gemini_mcp_remove

Remove a specified MCP server from Gemini CLI to clean up unused integrations. Use it when you need to unregister or delete an MCP server by name.

Instructions

Remove an MCP server from gemini CLI (gemini mcp remove ).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gemini_mcp_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`scope`	No	project
`timeout_s`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool removes an MCP server but does not disclose whether removal is permanent, what happens if the server does not exist, permission requirements, or how scope affects the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It includes the underlying CLI form, which is useful and appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description is still incomplete for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. It omits parameter meanings and behavioral consequences that an agent needs in order to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions the required name parameter via CLI syntax. It does not explain the scope parameter or the timeout_s parameter, leaving two of three parameters undocumented beyond raw schema types and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remove an MCP server from Gemini CLI. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling add/list MCP tools without needing to inspect schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or route to alternatives such as gemini_mcp_add or gemini_mcp_list. The operation is implied by the verb, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.